Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering (MCM'16)

Budapest, Hungary – August 22 – 23, 2016

Paper No. HTFF 125
DOI: 10.11159/htff16.125

Concentration Distribution of Solid Particles Transported by a

Pseudoplastic Fluid
Aldo Tamburrino1, Gonzalo Montserrat2, Christian Ihle3
1
Associate Professor & Associate Researcher
Department of Civil Engineering & Advanced Mining Technology Center
University of Chile
Av. Blanco Encalada 2002, Santiago 8370449, Chile
atamburr@ing.uchile.cl
2
Project Engineer
Hydraulics National Institute, Minister of Public Works
Av. Concordia 0620, Peñaflor 9750913, Chile
gonzalomontserrat@inh.cl
3
Assistant Professor & Associate Researcher
Department of Mining Engineering & Advanced Mining Technology Center
University of Chile
Av. Tupper 2069, Santiago, 8370451, Chile
cihle@ing.uchile.cl

Abstract - Concentration distributions of solid particles transported by pseudoplastic fluids in laminar regime were determined
experimentally. Practically all the distributions show minimum concentration of solids near the centre of the pipe and higher toward the
walls and even, for some conditions, the highest values near the top of the pipe. This behaviour of the concentration distribution was
explained when diffusive fluxes of the solid particles due to concentration gradient and viscosity gradient are considered. An existing
diffusive model was modified in order to take into account negatively buoyant particles and a pseudoplastic fluid as a carrier. It was
found that the head loss plays an important role in the fluxes of solid particles due to gradients of concentration and viscosity, increasing
them enough to overcome the effect of gravity.

Keywords: pseudoplastic fluids, concentration distribution, laminar flow, diffusive fluxes

1. Introduction and Objective

The hydraulic transport of solids in pipes is used in many industrial processes, particularly in the mining industry.
Usually, it is considered that the flow has to be turbulent to keep the solid particles in suspension, and the upward velocity
of the turbulent eddies must be greater than the sedimentation velocity of the particles [1]. Practically all of the studies
regarding transport of solids in pipes have been developed using water as a carrier fluid. However, the rheological properties
of the solids and water mixture can be modified depending on the concentration and mineralogy of the particles transported
by the fluid. Thus, for high concentrations of solids, the particles with smaller size and the water behave as an equivalent
non-Newtonian fluid which is the carrier of the larger particles. Studies considering non-Newtonian carriers are
comparatively much less than those that considers water or a Newtonian transport fluid [2]. The objective of this article is to
report the results of an experimental study regarding the concentration distribution of the solid particles transported by a
pseudoplastic fluid in laminar regime and interpret them considering the diffusive fluxes due to gradient of concentration
and gradient of viscosity.

2. Experimental Set-up and Materials

2.1. Experimental set-up

A sketch of the experimental set-up used in the research is shown in Fig. 1. From the head tank, the slurry is pumped
towards the test section by means of two centrifugal pumps EBARA DWO400 connected in series and controlled by a
frequency inverter SEW EURODRIVE model MOVITRAC B. The test section consisted in a 12 m long transparent PVC

HTFF 125-1
pipe with an inner diameter of 5.08 cm. Along the pipe, 3 pressure transducers were installed to get continuous pressure
records. Near the end of the pipe, an electrical resistance tomography (ERT) sensor with a data acquisition system model
P2+ made by ITS was installed in order to record the concentration distribution of solids. The software used for data
processing was ITS System 2000. The slurry returned to the head tank by means of a pipe of 2.54 cm diameter. A refrigerating
system was installed along this pipe that kept the slurry at a constant temperature. Discharge was measured with a magnetic
flowmeter SIEMENS 3100 and a signal transmitter SIEMENS MAG-500.

Head tank

PVC pipe

ERT sensor
Refrigerating system

Flowmeter

Pressure transducers Pumps

Fig. 1: Experimental set-up.

2.2. Materials
Glass microspheres of three different size distributions and density (𝜌) equal to 2500 kg/m3 were the solid particles
used in the experiments. Characteristic diameters of each size distribution are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Characteristic diameters of the glass microspheres used in the experiments.

Type 𝑑20 (m) 𝑑50 (m) 𝑑80 (m)

I 100 120 150
II 205 300 380
III 435 600 740

The pseudoplastic fluid used as a carrier was generated dissolving sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) in water.
When the solids particles are added to the fluid, the finest particles and the fluid behaves as an equivalent fluid and the
rheology to this mixture needs to be known. Three different concentrations (weight/weight) of CMC in water were
considered: 0.5%, 0.6% and 0.8%, and concentrations (volume/volume) of solids in the CMC and water mixture ranging
from nominal 17% to 32%. Thus, a total of 26 different conditions associated to the materials were defined. The largest
particles of the different types of solids present a process of sedimentation during the rheology determination, and it was
found that particles with sizes smaller than 60-70 m do not sediment through the rheological tests. The characteristic
rheology corresponds to the mixture of fines particles and the pseudoplastic aqueous CMC solution. Rheology was
determined with a rheometer made by Anton Paar model Rheolab QC, with a peltier temperature control. The rheograms
fitted well to a Ostwald–de Waele (or power law) model, 𝜏 = 𝐾𝛾̇ 𝑛 , where 𝜏 is the shear stress, 𝛾̇ is the strain rate, 𝐾 is the
consistency coefficient and 𝑛 is the flow index. Density (fine particles+fluid) was measured with was measured by a Gamma
RTM Dr J Ambrus densimeter. A summary of the parameter characterizing the mixtures and the solid concentrations () are
presented in Table 2.

HTFF 125-2
2.3. Flow discharge
The volumetric discharge 𝑄 of the mixtures ranged between 0.030 and 1.748 L/s depending on each specific the
mixture, and it is given in Table 2.

Table 2: Rheological parameters and concentration of solids in the experiments.

Mixture No. 𝑑50 (m)  (%, vol/vol) 𝜌 (kg/m3) 𝐾 (Pasn) 𝑛 𝑄 (L/s)

1 120 19.278 – 27.221 1005.025 0.29 0.69 0.538 – 1.636
2 120 16.767 – 23.411 1005.025 0.13 0.83 0.470 – 1.396
3 120 18.292 – 28.648 1005.025 0.44 0.66 0.302 – 1.258
4 120 21.813 – 25.524 1006.899 0.81 0.61 0.323 – 0.996
5 120 21.979 – 31.643 1006.899 1.12 0.58 0.108 – 0.968
6 120 23.709 – 31.078 1006.899 1.31 0.54 0.085 – 0.762
7 120 17.355 – 20.595 1008.065 2.94 0.46 0.197 –1.149
8 120 22.718 – 24.273 1008.065 3.34 0.47 0.083 – 1.020
9 300 18.330 – 41.107 1005.025 0.36 0.66 0.069 – 1.748
10 300 24.385 – 47.449 1005.025 0.43 0.64 0.050 – 1.584
11 300 29.368 – 44.152 1005.025 0.73 0.58 0.099 – 1.677
12 300 19.614 – 41.622 1006.899 0.81 0.56 0.050 – 1.287
13 300 23.841 – 43.549 1009.899 0.65 0.59 0.114 – 1.735
14 300 27.680 – 43.138 1006.899 0.92 0.57 0.091 – 1.497
15 300 17.008 – 32.324 1008.065 3.63 0.45 0.030 – 0.473
16 300 24.551 – 41.744 1008.065 3.26 0.44 0.076 – 1.338
17 300 30.508 – 46.760 1008.065 3.52 0.42 0.030 – 1.162
18 600 22.251 – 38.988 1005.025 0.22 0.71 0.069 – 1.748
19 600 26.137 – 41.421 1005.025 0.21 0.71 0.159 – 1.584
20 600 29.928 – 44.486 1005.025 0.14 0.77 0.099 – 1.677
21 600 20.897 – 33.029 1006.899 0.31 0.68 0.358 – 1.400
22 600 27.317 – 42.342 1006.899 0.32 0.67 0.237 – 1.197
23 600 28.687 – 41.318 1006.899 0.23 0.71 0.231 – 1.340
24 600 25.000 – 43.511 1008.065 1.14 0.55 0.030 – 0.819
25 600 26.600 – 43.387 1008.065 0.77 0.59 0.107 – 1.132
26 600 32.189 – 52.278 1008.065 0.38 0.68 0.139 – 1.233

2.4. Flow regime

To define the flow regime, the criterion by Mishra and Tripathi [3] was used. According to that criterion, the flow
1 4𝑛 𝑛 𝜌𝑈 2−𝑛 𝐷 𝑛
regime is laminar when the Reynolds number, as defined by Metzner and Reed [4], 𝑅𝑒 = 8𝑛−1 (3𝑛+1) 𝐾
, is less
(4𝑛+2)(5𝑛+3)
than a critical value given by 𝑅𝑒𝐶 = 3(3𝑛+1)2
2100. 𝐷 and 𝑈 are the pipe diameter and flow velocity, respectively. For
all the mixtures, the minimum value of 𝑅𝑒𝐶 is 2186 and the maximum value of the Reynolds numbers for all the flow
conditions is 𝑅𝑒 = 1287, ensuring the laminar regime.

3. Experimental Results
A total of 241 concentration distributions of the solid particles (for equal number of flow conditions) were obtained
with the electrical resistance tomography sensor. Grouped according to the size 𝑑50 of the particles, the number of
concentration distributions is: 78 for 𝑑50 = 120 m, 81 for 𝑑50 = 300 m and 82 for 𝑑50 = 600 m. Given the impossibility
to show the measurements for all the experiments, 9 were chosen to be presented in this paper and they are shown in Fig. 2.
(The complete set of measurements can be found in the appendix of the Master Thesis of the second author [5], downloadable
from http://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/132978 ). Associated to the tomographic images presented in Fig. 2 are the

HTFF 125-3
concentration profiles along the vertical axis 𝑧 that are shown in Fig. 3. The value of the concentration for each location 𝑧
corresponds to the horizontal average.

Fig. 2: Concentration distributions obtained with the ETR sensor. Each column from left to right corresponds to d50 = 120 m, 300 m
and 600 m. Each file from bottom to top corresponds to the nominal discharges 𝑄 = 0.3 L/s, 0.8 L/s and 1.4 L/s. Concentration
below 0% does not have physical sense. The value of -10% was chosen to delimit the pipe boundaries.

The measured concentration presented unexpected distributions (at least for the authors), showing lower values near
the centre of the pipe and sometimes with the highest values near the top of the pipe, as can be seen in Fig. 3. After reviewing
the hardware, the data acquisition and data analysis protocols it was discarded that they were measurements artefacts or data
misprocessing, and the results should be analysed considering the dynamics of a non-Newtonian fluid flow and its interaction
with the solid particles.

4. Analysis of experimental results

The measurements show that the particles with 𝑑50 equal to 120 and 300 m present a concentration distribution with
two local maxima, one located in the upper half of the pipe and the second one in the lower half, with a region of low
concentration in the centre of the conduit (under some conditions, the concentration at the centre of the pipe was zero). The
distribution for the particles with 𝑑50 = 600 m follows a more common tendency, with higher values near the bottom,
although lower values are still found near the centre of the pipe. Another important issue was that, although the solid particles
are negatively buoyant, they are kept in suspension. Particles with 𝑑50 = 300 and 600 m do not settle, even for flows with
Reynolds numbers as low as 𝑅𝑒 = 100.
The hypothesis that the concentration distribution of the solid particles and its suspension in laminar regime is the
result of fluxes deriving from hydrodynamic diffusion process [6, 7] and the non-Newtonian characteristic of the fluid arose
as an explanation. A qualitative analysis based on the diffusive model by Phillips et al. [8] was used to explain the shape of
the concentration distribution of solids. It has to be noted that that model considers a Newtonian fluid with neutrally buoyant

HTFF 125-4
particles, and it has to be modified for an Ostwal-de Waele fluid and settling particles. According to Phillips et al model, the
transport of concentration  is given by:

𝐷
= −∇ ∙ (𝑁𝐶 + 𝑁 ) (1)
𝐷𝑡
where 𝐷⁄𝐷𝑡 is the material derivative of the concentration . 𝑁𝐶 and 𝑁 are the fluxes of particles due to the gradient
of concentration and to the gradient of viscosity, respectively, and they depend on dimensionless diffusion coefficients 𝐷𝐶
and 𝐷 that were determined experimentally by Phillips et al. The fluxes are given by:

𝑁𝐶 = −𝐷𝐶 𝑎2  ∇(𝛾̇ ) = −𝐷𝐶 𝑎2 (2 ∇𝛾̇ + 𝛾̇ ∇) (2)

2
2 𝑎
𝑁𝜇 = −𝐷𝜇 𝛾̇  ( ) ∇𝜇𝑚 (3)
𝜇𝑚

In the above equations, 𝑎 is the particle diameter and 𝜇𝑚 the viscosity of the mixture, which depends on the solids
concentration. Note that the flux due to viscosity gradient cannot exist in the flow of a pure Newtonian fluid.

Fig. 3: Distribution of the horizontal averaged concentration. Each column from left to right corresponds to d50 = 120 m, 300 m and
600 m. Each file from bottom to top corresponds to the nominal discharges 𝑄 = 0.3 L/s, 0.8 L/s and 1.4 L/s.

Phillips et al. model does not consider the downward flux resulting from the action of gravity. In the range of Stokes,
this flux is given by

2 𝜌𝑆 − 𝜌
𝑁𝑔 = − 𝑓𝑔𝑎2 (4)
9 𝜇𝑒𝑓𝑓

where 𝑓 is a hindering function:

𝑓 = (1 − )𝛽 (5)

with 𝛽 obtained from

HTFF 125-5
 4.8 − 𝛽 2⁄(2−𝑛)
0.57 𝑑 0.27
= 0.0365(𝐶𝐷 𝑅𝑒𝑃 ) [1 − 2.4 ( ) ] (6)
𝛽 − 2.4 𝐷

where 𝑅𝑒𝑃 = 𝜌𝑉 2−𝑛 𝑎𝑛 ⁄𝐾 is the particle Reynolds number (𝑉 is the particle velocity) and 𝐶𝐷 the drag coefficient that
can be computed from any available relationship, like that by Dhole et al. [9] which is valid in the range 5≤ 𝑅𝑒𝑃 ≤500 :
⁄(2.42𝑛+0.918)
𝐶𝐷 = (24⁄𝑅𝑒𝑃 ) (1 + 0.148𝑅𝑒𝑃2.35𝑛 ).
𝑧
In order to carry out a qualitative analysis, the flow in a cylindrical 𝑧
pipe will be simplified to a two dimensional Pouseille flow, where the 𝑧
direction is along the diameters of the pipe (Fig. 4). As gravity acts in the
vertical direction, 𝑁𝑔 will be projected along 𝑧 in the analysis that follows. 𝜃
Assuming a steady state flow with no secondary currents, i.e. only with the
component 𝑢 of the velocity in the 𝑥 direction, the momentum equation is
reduced to 0 = − 𝜕𝑃⁄𝜕𝑥 + 𝜕𝜏𝑧𝑥 ⁄𝜕𝑧, where 𝑧 is the coordinate normal to
𝑥, 𝑃 is the pressure and 𝜏𝑧𝑥 the shear stress that is reduced to 𝜏𝑧𝑥 = Fig. 4: Simplification of the cylindrical geometry
𝐾(𝜕𝑢⁄𝜕𝑧)𝑛 . To simplify the notation, it is defined 𝑃𝑥 = 𝜕𝑃⁄𝜕𝑥 and 𝛾̇ = to the two dimensional Poiseulille flow.
𝜕𝑢⁄𝜕𝑧. Integrating the momentum equation with respect to , 𝛾̇ =
((𝑃𝑥 𝑧 + 𝐶1 )⁄𝐾 )1⁄𝑛 is obtained, with 𝐶1 a constant of integration. The mixture of fine particles and the psudoplastic carrier
behave as an equivalent pseudoplastic fluid, characterized by a mixture consistency coefficient, 𝐾𝑚 , which is a function of
the volumetric concentration of solids, . It can be estimated according to the relationships of Kawase and Ulbrecht (1983)
[10]. Thus, the deformation shear rate of the mixture can be written as

𝑃𝑥 𝑧 + 𝐶1 1⁄𝑛
𝛾̇𝑚 = ( ) (7)
𝐾𝑚

An effective viscosity of the mixture is defined as

𝑛−1
𝑃𝑥 𝑧 + 𝐶1 𝑛
(8)
𝜇𝑚 = 𝐾𝑚 |𝛾̇𝑚 |𝑛−1 = 𝐾𝑚 | |
𝐾𝑚

Using 𝛾̇𝑚 instead of 𝛾̇ , and 𝜇𝑚 in the expressions for the fluxes, and considering two dimensional Pouseuille flow, it
is possible to get more manageable relationships that will allow us to know the flux of solid particles in the 2D pipe. Thus,
the fluxes associated to concentration gradient and viscosity gradient are reduced to:

𝑑|𝛾̇𝑚 | 𝑑𝜙
𝑁𝐶 = −𝐷𝐶 𝑎2 (𝜙 2 + 𝜙|𝛾̇𝑚 | ) (9)
𝑑𝑧 𝑑𝑧
2
𝑎 𝑑𝜇 𝑚
𝑁𝜇 = −𝐷𝜇 |𝛾̇𝑚 |𝜙 2 ( ) (10)
𝜇𝑚 𝑑𝑧
𝑑𝜇𝑚 𝑑𝐾𝑚 𝑑𝜙
= (11)
𝑑𝑧 𝑑𝜙 𝑑𝑧

With respect to the diffusion coefficients, 𝐷𝐶 = 0.43 [11] and 𝐷 = 𝐷𝐶 ⁄(0.01042 + 0.142) [12] were used. It is
worth to stress the important role played by the energy loss 𝑃𝑥 through the mixture viscosity in all the fluxes. The absolute
value of the shear rate should be used in the equations because the diffusive model is based on the frequency of particle
collisions which scales with |𝛾̇𝑚 |, according to the model of Leighton and Acrivos [7, 8].
It is easy to see that the direction of the fluxes 𝑁𝐶 and 𝑁𝜇 is defined by the sign of 𝑑𝜙⁄𝑑𝑧, 𝑑|𝛾̇𝑚 |⁄𝑑𝑧 and 𝑑𝜇𝑚 ⁄𝑑𝑧.
The flux of particles due to gravity, 𝑁𝑔 , depends only on (𝜌𝑆 − 𝜌) and it is always downwards for negatively buoyant
particles. The net flux of particles along the 𝑧 direction is 𝑁𝑇 = 𝑁𝐶 + 𝑁𝜇 + 𝑁𝑔 sin 𝜃. The result of an analysis for different
conditions is given below for some particular cases.

HTFF 125-6
 INCREASING VISCOSITY

Fig. 5: Effect of viscosity in the direction of the flux of particles. 𝑄 ~ 1 L/s and 𝑑50 = 600 m.

Fig. 6: Effect of particle size in the direction of the flux of particles. 𝑄 ~ 1 L/s.

Fig. 7: Effect of the head loss in the direction of the fluxof particles. 𝑄 ~ 1.6 L/s and 𝑑50 = 120 m.

For a relatively high discharge (𝑄 ~ 1 L/s) and 𝑑50 = 600 m, it is found that |𝑁𝑔 sin 𝜃| > |𝑁𝐶 + 𝑁𝜇 | only for the less
viscous mixtures. Radial fluxes (along 𝑧) for this condition are presented in Fig. 5, in which viscosity increases from left to
right. A similar analysis shows that for the same viscosity and discharge, |𝑁𝑔 sin 𝜃| > |𝑁𝐶 + 𝑁𝜇 | in the centre of the pipe.
Fig. 6 corresponds to the cases in which discharge, viscosity and pressure gradient are kept constant, changing the particle
size. It is observed that for the two largest sizes of particles (𝑑50 equal to 300 and 600 m) gravity fluxes dominates only
near the center of the pipe, with strong fluxes towards the walls due to the gradient of concentartion and viscosity. The effect

HTFF 125-7
of the head loss is presented in Fig. 7, where the flux directions are shown for 𝑄 ~ 1.6 L/s, 𝑑50 = 600 m, 𝐾 = 0.29 Pasn,
and 𝑛 = 0.60, and three pressure gradients: 𝑃𝑥 ⁄𝜌𝑚 𝑔 = 0.10 m, 0.25 m, 0.30 m. It is observed that at higher head loss per
unit length, diffusive fluxes overcome the gravitational one.

4. Conclusion
The qualitative analysis of fluxes of solid particles due to gradient of concentration and viscosity indicates that the
concentration of particles carried by a pseudoplastic fluid in laminar regime can present minimum values near the centre and
higher close to the walls. The analysis, although highly simplified, preserves the most important physical mechanisms that
govern the migration of the solid particles. Thus, it was explained why larger particles did not settle in the experiments. It
was found that the pressure gradient (head loss) controls the fluxes through the effective viscosity of the mixture formed by
the solid particles and the pseudoplasic fluid.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the funding provides by grants Fondecyt 1130910 and Fondequip EQM-120197. The second
author also acknowledges the fellowship PFCHA/Magister Nacional/2013 folio 221320466.

References
[1] A. Oroskar and R. Turian, “The critical velocity in pipeline flow of slurries,” AIChE Journal, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 550-
558, 1980.
[2] A. P. Poloski, F. Nigl, H. E. Adkins, M. J. Minette, J. Abrefah, J. J. Toth, A. M. Casella, J. M. Tingey, R. E. Hohimer,
and S. T. Yokuda, “Deposition Velocities of Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Slurries in Pipelines,” Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, PNNL-17639, WTP-RPT-175 Rev. 0, 2009.
[3] P. Mishra and G. Tripathi, “Transition from laminar to turbulent flow of purely viscous non-Newtonian fluids in tubes,”
Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 915-921, 1971.
[4] A. Metzner and J. Reed, “Flow of non-Newtonian fluids-correlation of the laminar, transition, and turbulent-flow
regions,” AIChE Journal, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 434-440, 1955.
[5] G. Montserrat, “Estudio experimental de las pérdidas de carga en tuberías con flujos de mezclas sólidos líquido no-
newtoniano en régimen laminar,” Master Thesis in Water Resources and Environment, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Chile, 2015.
[6] D. Leighton and A. Acrivos. “The shear-induced migration of particles in concentrated suspensions,” Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, vol. 181, pp. 415-439, 1987.
[7] D. Leighton and A. Acrivos, “Measurement of shear-induced self-diffusion in concentrated suspensions of spheres,”
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 177, pp. 109-131, 1987.
[8] R. Phillips, R. Brown, R., A. Graham, and J. Abbott. “A constitutive equation for concentrated suspensions that accounts
for shear induced particle migration,” Physics of Fluids, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 30-40, 1992.
[9] S. D. Dhole, R. P. Chhabra, and V. Eswaran, “Flow of power-law fluids past a sphere at intermediate Reynolds
numbers,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 45, no. 13, pp. 4773-4781, 2006.
[10] Y. Kawase and J. J. Ulbrecht, “Rheological properties of suspensions of solid spheres in non-Newtonian fluids,”
Chemical Engineering Communications, vol. 20, no. 3-4, pp. 127-136, 1983.
[11] K. Zhang and A. Acrivos, “Viscous resuspension in fully developed laminar pipe flows,” International journal of
multiphase flow, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 579-591, 1994.
[12] N. Tetlow, A. L. Graham, M. S. Ingber, S. R. Subia, L. A. Mondy, and S. A. Altobelli, “Particle migration in a Couette
apparatus: Experiment and modeling,” Journal of Rheology, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 307-327, 1988.

HTFF 125-8